SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – structure and rationale of qualified systematic reviews
16 references·0 citing·37 second hop
The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – structure and rationale of qualified systematic reviews (2020)The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022…RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology (2019)COSMOS-E: Guidance on conduct…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE Statement (2016)Strengthening the Reporting o…Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology – nutritional epidemiology ( STROBE ‐nut): An extension of the STROBE statement (2016)Strengthening the Reporting o…ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessin…Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research (2016)Perspective: NutriGrade: A Sc…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2010)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making (2010)Application of systematic rev…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (2002)Systems to rate the strength …The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Cultural Competence (2005)Bulimia nervosa treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (2007)Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings (2007)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (2004)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The New Statistics (2013)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency (2014)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions20,225 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,471 cited
  • 2010Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,176 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,702 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2002Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.880 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • 2010Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making695 cited
  • 2016Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE Statement534 cited
  • 2019

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology
522 cited
  • 2016Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology – nutritional epidemiology ( STROBE ‐nut): An extension of the STROBE statement451 cited
  • 2016Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research359 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.